One thing that has always bothered people about the World Economic Forum (WEF) is how aesthetically disagreeable it can be. Its style seems deliberately outre. Why does Klaus Schwab, the WEF’s impresario and MC, dress up like a cultic high priest? Why does Yuval Noah Harari – the organisation’s court philosopher – make slightly gleeful dismissals of the idea of human rights? “Take a human, cut him open, look inside. You find the blood, you find the heart, and the lungs and the kidneys – but you don’t find any rights.”
Why this dogged insistence on giving people the creeps? Fundamentally it’s an affectation. The showy amoralism of the WEF is in fact a personal branding exercise, one that arose in response to the first real stirrings against its worldview in the middle of the last decade.
These conflicts after 2016 have been cast in a certain way – not least by Davos itself. What ‘populism’ was objecting to, it was said, was economic and technological modernity. The world was being ironed flat by a ruthless process of economic optimisation that had begun in the 1980s, one in which all the old social institutions that might inhibit the free-flow of capital were to be swept away. What populism meant, then, was a romantic but essentially doomed revolt by those who had been squeezed out.
Armed with this idea, the WEF and its extended class of hangers-on have worked up a kind of equal and opposite anti-romanticism: amoral, bloodless and smirkingly technocratic. If populism represented the past, then the WEF represented the future. One aspect of this is an affected elitism: even the WEF’s website now makes a wry reference to its reputation as a clubhouse for ‘distant elites’.
More significantly, this personal branding allows the WEF and the orthodoxy it represents to take up the mantle of pragmatism, realism and modernity. Even the wobblier parts of this worldview, like mass migration or degrowth economics, could now be cast as simple historical inevitabilities, part of a general trend of bloodless rationalisation all over the world. These things were inexorable and therefore unanswerable; in this the WEF was only the bearer of bad news for the populists. Hence Schwab’s space-age getup.
Opponents of this worldview have been strangely willing to take Davos at its own conceit. Many are content to play the role cast for them: doomed rebels of the ‘heart’ against the unfeeling ‘head’.
And a conceit it is. Scratch a Davos attendee and you’ll find a gooey moralism and a generalised fear of any kind of material change.
For one, the WEF has never met a new technology that it likes. Davos is only beginning to recover from the rise of the internet, which decentralises information and so acts as a solvent to consensus. The average ‘left-behind’ white proletariat in Brandenburg, or Hénin-Beaumont, or West Bromwich has eagerly seized on the internet as a means of political communication; he or she wields it with much more savvy than, say, Angela Merkel. To people like the latter the internet is only sinister; what it puts at stake is not merely a particular consensus, but the very concept of truth itself. It’s always been the Davos line, then, that the internet must be bowdlerised in order to rebuild old solidarities.
Artificial Intelligence, too, is simply another subversive element to gut. Again, new technology is only something that’s allowed insofar as it shores up reigning social structures. What the WEF’s reaction to AI represents isn’t peevish regulationism but downright alarmism – one that draws heavily on the apocalyptic predictions of Eliezer Yudkowsky and the Effective Altruists. Sure enough, the topline recommendations from this year’s conference were for governments and the private sector to put “ethics and responsibility”, not commercial application, at the “forefront” of their AI policies. AI is something that really does threaten to dissolve the old certainties, economic and otherwise; but it’s Davos that’s leading the charge against it.
Think back also to one of the WEF’s more menacing slogans: “You’ll own nothing and be happy.” The accompanying essay imagines a future society in which all modern conveniences are shared. But this is just another kind of atavism. The clamour for shared canteens, group constitutionals and mandatory kumbayas isn’t new; it was the stock-in-trade of the romantic and agrarian communal experiments of the 19th century – like the barracks-cum-school Phalanstère of Charles Fourier. These kinds of social wheezes are, above all, a reaction against the anomie of modern life; the objective here is to rebuild solidarities that industrial capitalism has destroyed. Every vision of society offered by the WEF defaults to this same crude Fourierism: Ida Auken’s essay; Stakeholder Capitalism; The Great Reset (2020). It takes a lot of nerve, then, for Davos to accuse its populist opponents of harkening back to some sort of frumpy communitarianism.
And whatever Noah Harari may pretend, the Davos worldview is one that’s steeped in the language of universal human rights. Despite the conceit of bloodless rationalisation, during the pandemic Davos never questioned the idea that all human lives – no matter how many years were left to them – were equally valuable, and so must be protected with a Lockdown that collapsed global trade overnight. The old concerns about interconnected ‘just-in-time’ supply chains were dropped in an instant. Nor is mass migration ever subject to any kind of cold accounting at Davos. Third World immigration does not add to Western exchequers, but for the WEF that is beside the point. For Davos this isn’t about cheap labour (its proposals never include simple Gulf monarchy-style work permits) but the universal brotherhood of man; a maximisation of total global welfare for which Western taxpayers are obliged to foot the bill.
What Davos’ affected amoralism occludes, then, is that this worldview doesn’t represent an unfeeling new modernity, but rather an egalitarian moral project which is anti-modern in its assumptions. So when Davos plays the card of technocracy and thin-lipped realism, its opponents should not take it at its word. Because what we see from Davos isn’t “All that is solid melt[ing] into air”, but the search for a deadening new solidity.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Lockdown, lockdown, do it now, if not for us then to save the children
Please God lockdown
Omicron was a bit embarrassed about being so ineffective so it called it’s cousin from southern Sudan — enter OMICRON 2 !! Already at a cinema near you!!
Great. Can we have our lives back now CUNTS?
Sajid says…
So was victim numero uno triple jabbed I wonder ?
Makes no odds, this was always baked in regardless. If I remember correctly the expiry on the self certification for VAX passports was 15th December. It was leaked out but I can’t find the page now.
The true believers will lap it all up for the greater good regardless.
Does look like they are going to struggle to get the deaths in the numbers they want/need.
They’re working on that by denying health care to the elderly for the next 3 months. And they won’t have died from the untreated diabetes, high blood pressure, heart attacks, undiagnosed cancer – nope, you can bet it will be the lurgy, even if they have to plant a fake positive PCR test on the corpse.
no he was an unvaccinated 25 year old professional sportsman, but they’ve kept it quiet…
Or maybe not!
‘Really, I think the safety record is incredible with these vaccines. They’re very impressive with their safety record.’ (12:15)
https://youtu.be/cSXBf0DHD9M
This was Sally Cutler responsing to Nigel Farage asking if she had any concerns regarding the Pfizer report doing the rounds, wherein an astounding number of adverse events is listed. Cutler utterly swerved the question and instead offered gushing praise for the ‘safety record’ of the ‘vaccines’. She could be a politician. But she’s a professor of medical microbiology. And evidently part of the cult.
This is the ‘standard’ stuff we have come to expect from ‘experts’. They simply avoid unwanted data and facts. This pathetic creature avoids the question and simply asserts that these pseudo vaccines’ safety record is ‘incredible’, thus begging the question by assuming the very thing on the table.
Moreover, the Pfizer report aside, given the stunning and unprecedented number of reported adverse events to Yellow Card, and given the undereporting factor, how on earth can this woman say with a straight face that these vaccines’ safety record is incredible’? Unless she means incredibly bad, which of course she doesn’t, then we have yet another case of a ‘vaccine’ advocate abusing language.
Farage let her get away with swerving his question. I wouldn’t be surprised if he failed to notice that she swerved the question. I don’t think his heart’s really in the debate.
Watch as Professor Fenton shakes his head in disbelief as this woman demonstrates she’s either ignorant of the adverse events data linked to these pseudo vaccines or is well aware, couldn’t give a toss and is lying through her teeth (I favour the latter here). Farage surely sees Fenton shaking his head and laughing at this woman’s claims, yet he doesn’t bring him in to respond. Fenton would have wiped the floor with her.
What a joke.
See also
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59639973
The jab whose first two injections don’t work on the new variant does work if you have a 3rd dose.
No, I don’t understand either.
Or maybe he’s just on a percentage commission, like some salesmen.
Truly astounding level of bullshit in that article. TLDR: more is always better.
The antibodies bind less to the target due to mutation and repeated dosing with the same vax. Autoimmune disease ahoy.
https://mobile.twitter.com/gerdosi/status/1387413025926361093
Sally Cutler was pitted against a British journalist in Salzburg on the Dan Wootton Show about three weeks ago to discuss the Austrian lockdown of unvaccinated and the plans for mandatory vaccines. She was all for it but had no evidence to back up her support for the measures even when asked by the ex-pat guy. He wiped the floor with her. She was an absolute embarrassment to academia. All she could say smugly was that she had contacts in Europe and they had assured her that things were really bad there.
When the British chap said that he lived 5 miles from the main hospital in Salzburg and asked her to explain why he himself had witnessed that it was totally empty, she retorted that we only had his word for it and as she wasn’t in Austria she wasn’t in a position to validate his claim. Judging from her smirk she regarded that as a clever ‘gotcha’ answer but it just made her look pathetic.
She is clearly wheeled out loaded with the usual mainstream sound bites but nothing of any substance to support the narrative.
Fenton shooting straight. That woman is a disgrace. “The worst adverse event you see is a sore arm”.
Actual deaths and she’s there saying just a a sore arm is all. My god.
I know someone who lost consciousness for 30mins straight after his first dose. He’s now being pressured by friends to get the second because he is feeling left out of their nights out.
Why do you keep reporting this obvious COVID bullshit streaming in from South Africa as “suggests its less serious”? Taking the (one-off, as always) numbers as granted, IFR for Wuhan would be 4%, Delta 10.1% and Omicron 3.8%. That’s obvious BS because it’s missing an important qualification: It should have been for 1000 infections the SA health authorities found. Chances are that authorities in SA spend a lot less on mass testing of healthy people than they do in England, hence, the numbers are entirely meaningless.
How do you come to that conclusion? The figures quoted were for hospitalisations.
Isn’t this obvious? People are supposed to be hospitalized when they become so seriously ill that home care is no longer an option. Hence, this is an approximation of the number of those who had died hadn’t they been hospitalized, ie, of the infection fatality rate.
Government scientists today announced that Omicron is not the greatest threat to humanity due to next weeks discovery of Super Omicron.
It’s a miracle world: Each new Sars-CoV2 variant is so much more transmissible that all others pale in comparison to it. Reasoning backwards, something which can be hugely improved with each iteration must have been pretty puny to begin with.
I got delta, that wasn’t even the worst cold I had THIS YEAR.
The real flu, now that was BAD!
MSM is trying to make fun of people wanting to protect themselves with cheap and proven drugs. Ivermectin has been FDA approved for human use since 1996. It also beats Pfizer’s new wonder drug hands down, and costs next to nothing. Ivermectin doesn’t make tons of money. So they know the Covid shot is on its final gasp, so they take it add something different to it, rebrand under another name and charge 20 times what they would for ivermectin. I cannot wrap my head around this nonsense. When I explain this to my relatives they label me as crazy and ask me if I know better than science. I don’t make up these information out of my ass. All this information is true and proven. For some people it is near impossible for them to wake up. They are comfortable in their clown world life. If you want to get Ivermectin you can visit https://ivmpharmacy.com
Is this spam? See this kind of post on many articles here.
Dr Robert Malone says getting Omicron could be like getting a traditional vaccine, which uses a live attenuated form of the virus, produces no, or mild, symptoms and conveys broad spectrum immunity. Bring it on!
Interview with Dr Robert Malone:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/global-totalitarianism-is-a-bigger-threat-than-the-coronavirus-itself-mrna-inventor/
How did World Economic Forum know about new variant in South Africa back in July 2021?
https://web.archive.org/web/20211126173158/https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/how-scientists-detect-new-covid-19-variants/